(ISM) -- Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.

Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

But these theories leave major questions unresolved. For example: What started the big bang? What caused inflation to end? What is the source of the mysterious dark energy that is apparently causing the universe to speed up its expansion?

The idea that our universe is entirely contained within a black hole provides answers to these problems and many more. It eliminates the notion of physically impossible singularities in our universe. And it draws upon two central theories in physics.

The last question can potentially be investigated: since all stars and thus black holes rotate, our universe would have inherited the parent black hole’s axis of rotation as a "preferred direction." There is some recently reported evidence from surveys of over 15,000 galaxies that in one hemisphere of the universe more spiral galaxies are "left-handed", or rotating clockwise, while in the other hemisphere more are "right-handed", or rotating counterclockwise.

Thanks for posting that. Interesting theory that I hadn't read about before.

On a more local note, we really need to draft a couple of nasty linemen from that parent universe. Big, fast moving, explosive, lots of natural bend and torque, with plenty of dark energy. I'm down with Sheldon Richardson.

It's funny that we have all this observational data and we keep arranging and rearranging into different models, but we always run headlong into the same problem:

Infinite regress.

Infinite regress occurs when the solution you come up with simply reintroduces the same problem you were trying to solve. The article broaches on the problem of infinite regress when it asks, "Where did the Big Bang come from?" So it posits a solution that actually reintroduces the same problem: "So where did our 'parent universe' come from?"

In truth, we've most likely reached the limits of scientific understanding. However, you can never be absolutely certain you're reached those limit so scientists feel compelled to keep hammering away...as they should.

As if saying our universe is in a black-hole somehow resolves the major questions. I thought the existence of a black-hole was predicated on a collapsing star? So the natural question is, where did that black-hole which gave birth to our universe come from?

Man these people are so full of themselves, telling us something as if they are actually telling us something...

The big bang theories leave some major questions unanswered. There are problems with singularities, symmetry, inflation and dark energy among others.

This theory is not new but is gaining new interest as it avoids the issue of singularities and maybe dark matter and energy. It also addresses spin which is a known property of matter. It also answers other questions some on the macro and some on the quantum level. Supersymmetry and branes also addresses some of the problems but in different ways although supersymmetry/string theory could compliment this theory or vice versa.

Theories are still theories and as such need constant questioning, study and refinement. Some of these theories have been around for over a 100 years and continue to stand up to testing some of which is pretty damned sophisticated and accurate.

So no they're not all full of themselves. The more they learn the more they know they don't know and the more questions some new and different come up.

To answer your question black holes come generally from the collapse of a massive star although they can also occur from the joining of two or more objects of masses less than needed for a black hole as in the joining of two neutron stars. The issue of black holes creating white holes is not new.

I have several friends that are in the camp including Kerzweil's version of singularity. Color me a bit of a skeptic though.

The one certain thing is that the more we think we know, the more foolish/astonished we are going to feel when the real answers are revealed to us.

In any case, here's to seeking the truth.

:cheers:

Couldn't agree more. Doubt I'll see a merged edition of a theory of everything before taking a long nap but I'm hoping. If and when we peek around that corner we'll just see another we can't see around for awhile. We can't go beyond science here so I'll have to leave it at that.

In HS we didn't speak of receding galaxies or we didn't even know of anything inside the atom beyond neutrons and protons. Never got introduced to quantum mechanics either although it had been around for fifty years. We've come a long way.

It's funny that we have all this observational data and we keep arranging and rearranging into different models, but we always run headlong into the same problem:

Infinite regress.

Infinite regress occurs when the solution you come up with simply reintroduces the same problem you were trying to solve. The article broaches on the problem of infinite regress when it asks, "Where did the Big Bang come from?" So it posits a solution that actually reintroduces the same problem: "So where did our 'parent universe' come from?"

In truth, we've most likely reached the limits of scientific understanding. However, you can never be absolutely certain you're reached those limit so scientists feel compelled to keep hammering away...as they should.

It's kinda fractal though, at least. But so is 'Turtles all the way down!'

One of the strengths of the Big Bang, in my opinion, is that it doesn't have that repeating quality where it's the same over and over again.

With the Big Bang, scientists have wiggle room; they can say, "Well, at a point of infinite density, it's difficult to predict how space-time will act. We may not need a beginning!"

There's an element of mystery, and mystery is always better than 'turtles, all the way down!'

indeed a primary strength of the true science method is not relying upon dogma, but the methodical, rigorous search for the nature of things posited with falsifiable propositions thru well prescribed methods via peer review... but you know that...the Scientists goal being unkown quauntites will one day be testable rendering it mystery no more if validated, or debunked absent rational, repeatable results. Plenty of erstwhile mysteries thru the ages, right? Many now common knowledge. Wiggle room implies slipperiness, not broad possiblities in need of further development and confirmation based on the weight of justifiable evidence, or full dismissal from lack thereof.

indeed a primary strength of the true science method is not relying upon dogma, but the methodical, rigorous search for the nature of things posited with falsifiable propositions thru well prescribed methods via peer review... but you know that...the Scientists goal being unkown quauntites will one day be testable rendering it mystery no more if validated, or debunked absent rational, repeatable results. Plenty of erstwhile mysteries thru the ages, right? Many now common knowledge. Wiggle room implies slipperiness, not broad possiblities in need of further development and confirmation based on the weight of justifiable evidence, or full dismissal from lack thereof.

Exactly. That's why it's "turtles all the way down" rather than "dogs all the way down".

If it were dogs, we'd have a problem. They're loveable but highly irrational creatures. Turtles, on the other hand, are very rational. Of all the animals in the animal kingdom, they have a the most solid grasp on Popperian falsification.

Of course, even Karl Popper conceded that some areas of study--such as human behavior--were beyond the scope of falsification. That's why some schools of economics are based on axiomatic reasoning rather than empirical methods. If you're not careful, the method itself becomes the dogma, and both the turtles and the dogs just sit back and laugh at us.